W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

Re: TBTF: Proposed resolution issue 179

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:37:32 +0000
Message-ID: <3C68F06C.805@sun.com>
To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
CC: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> How about:
> 
> ""A binding specification MUST support one or more Message Exchange 
> Patterns.  A binding specification MAY state that it supports additional 
> features,
> in which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining
> state, performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner
> consistent with the specification for those features."
> 
> As I mentioned on the call, I think it's MEP's that give you the general 
> framework for what to do with a message, where to deliver faults, etc. I'm 
> nervous about discussing what it means to deliver SOAP messages outside 
> the context of an MEP. 
> 

Fine with me. We might also want to wordsmith:

"As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional features, (such 
as reliable message delivery, request/response MEPs, multicast MEPs, etc.)."

which appears a little above the paragraph in question. How about:

"As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional features, (such 
as reliable message delivery, additional MEPs, etc.)."

Marc.


> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 02/11/2002 12:28 PM
> 
>  
>         To:     XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        TBTF: Proposed resolution issue 179
> 
> 
> Issue 179[1] concerns the apparent mandatory support for one-way MEPs in
> all bindings. During the last TBTF call we discussed this issue and the
> consensus was that mandatory support for a one-way MEP was not intended.
> I would like to propose the following resolution to this issue:
> 
> Currently in part 1, section 5.3 we find:
> 
> "Every binding specification MUST support the transmission and
> processing of one-way messages as described in this specification. A
> binding specification MAY state that it supports additional features, in
> which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining state,
> performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner
> consistent with the specification for those features."
> 
> I propose that we simply remove the first sentence so that the paragraph
> reads:
> 
> "A binding specification MAY state that it supports additional features,
> in which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining
> state, performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner
> consistent with the specification for those features."
> 
> Regards,
> Marc.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x179
> 
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 05:37:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT